I'm not contesting that he lived, was crucified, or missing from the grave. In fact, I'm pretty certain that it's been pretty settled on the first two points. The third is hearsay, as far as I know.... Regardless, none of these prove that he was the son of God, resurrected, ascended into Heaven, etc. Those are faith based interpretations of events, not the events themselves.

You are correct, and that of course is where faith comes in--like in anything else one believes or does not believe. The point I see is that Christians aren't just believing some random thing pulled out of the air--their belief is based on events that they see as meaningful.

Not that you've done this, but many anti-religious people like to claim it is all a fabrication, a myth (see Jesus Myth), or just some random idea plucked at someone's whim.

Perhaps I should have said my faith is not "absolute," and I say this because I admit to having doubts. You on the other hand do not have any doubts (according to you, you never have), so that indicates to me that your faith in your belief is in fact stronger than mine.

KAM

I think we're mixing "belief systems" with "choice" here. Two totally different things. Choosing not to believe is not a belief system... (why is Rush music playing in the back of my mind?)

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

You are correct, and that of course is where faith comes in--like in anything else one believes or does not believe. The point I see is that Christians aren't just believing some random thing pulled out of the air--their belief is based on events that they see as meaningful.

Not that you've done this, but many anti-religious people like to claim it is all a fabrication, a myth (see Jesus Myth), or just some random idea plucked at someone's whim.

KAM

I'm not anti-religion, per se, I just don't choose to believe in any religion. Free men, free will, freedom of and/or from religion.

I believe in God. It is, in my opinion, self-evident that he/she/it exists by the fact that we exist.

I think that religion IS a man made myth. That is not to say that events or persons did not occur or exist.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

The biggest issue I have with humans worshiping a God is that they are giving up their freedom for no reason at all. Worshiping a God so that you can spend eternity in a comfortable after life requires sacrifice. Sacrifice which limits your ability to be all you can be while your alive. Sacrifice which is ultimately unnecessary and a waste of your time. Time you could of spent living your life on your terms and not those of a mythical God.

Well, actually, other people have argued that these religious ideas are just "common sense" so what additional freedom am I giving up than I would be otherwise? Excepting of course the "freedom" I give up with the time I spend in Religious activities. I suggest that I am forced to give up a lot more freedom by government, but I don't want to tangent off into that. Suffice it to say--you seem to advocate very directly what I see as limitations on my freedom, and don't seem to have a problem with that at all.

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my view, I don't feel limited by my religious belief. And bottom line--you need not worry about my (Religious believers) life. It isn't really your business to declare for them the value of their personal choices.

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

Instead of making choices aimed at getting into a comfortable afterlife (which may or may not exist)...try living your life in the best interests of yourself, your family, friends and community (actual real things that we all share). I promise you the world will be a better place for it.

First--you can make no such promise. I suggest that the world would be much worse off if not for Religion, but these are both just conjecture.

Second, what makes you think that I'm NOT living my life in the best interest of myself, my family, friends and community? It isn't such, because you declare it isn't?

Thirdly, your view remains based on the assumption that you are correct, which is of course natural for you, but the mistake you make is in attempting to insist that reality therefore follows your belief, which then defines everyone else's as wrong. In short--your theory only works assuming that you are correct...which is again speaking to the circular nature of your position.

I on the other hand, decide what is best for me, and leave you to decide what is best for you.

I would say a religious belief and a regular belief are two very different things.

You are using Webster's 3rd definition of the word while KAM is using the 1st definition. I believe KAM has been arguing that not all of your beliefs fit the first definition (and that you are really fooling yourself if you think they do).

Here's an interesting observation that is exactly the opposite of Micael's beliefs (and also points that one can have religious "non-beliefs"):

Several years back, I worked with a man who was an atheist, but went to a "church" with others who held this same belief. They did good deeds for society and everything else. They just did not believe in "God". In my eyes (but not sure about the governments) they were a "religion" (using definition #2 in Webster's).

Well, actually, other people have argued that these religious ideas are just "common sense" so what additional freedom am I giving up than I would be otherwise?

Lets use the example of these Fish Fry folks in STL this evening. They are going to Church to eat fish so that they may show God just how much they can sacrifice. This is in the hopes that they will increase their chances of a place in a comfortable afterlife or something to that effect.

Meanwhile the rest of us are free to use that time for our own choosing. School, philanthropy, dinner with friends (other than fish), sleep, holiday...the list goes on. The point is, we can do what we like, without the threat of holy repercussions.

Theres was a post earlier where someone (a "believer") believed in evolution... Isn't that a philosophy against religion?
What is your stance on Dinosaurs?

I am a science guy, and a lot of my lack of "faith", "destiny" and religion is bc of hard evedince, I know this has been disputed earlier, but I cant, personally, accept an answer of a higher power too large to comprehend or faith as an answer. And certainly if a "God" or "Gods" exist, there is a science around them, there is no such thing as magic!

In my opinion there are alot of things in science that seem pretty magica. I think that when you are on one side of a river things you don't understand on the other look magical. We both fall into that catagory

So is Noah's Ark a factual event?
It is Impossible for 1000's of animals to be loaded onto a ship and maintain life, let alone fit or travel far enough to get there! A penguin can not travel 1000's of miles through Arctic water through warmer temperatures and though a desert to board a ship... I find this hard to believe even for logical believers.

Yes, I do believe these to be actual events. This will be hard for me to explain. I beleive in evolution to the point of we evolve to fit our surrondings. No one can argue that we have scientific proof (notice I did not say theory) That animals have evolved to fit their surrondings. So I would venture a guess that the species of animals was far less in those times than it is now. All animals evolved and changed SLIGHTLY to fit the need of where they are. This would explain why you would not need all of the animals there are now to fit one of every species in the ark. I am not sure about this but what is the oldest fossil ever found of a penguin. Have we even found one that is as old as Noah. Now let me say that I do not believe that we evolved from apes there is no PROOF (scientific) of this, it is all speculation and THEORY. Because in the scientific world the proof is in the pudding.

And just curious, what about alien life forms? If there is, are they also created by "God" and do you think being as technilogicaly advanced as they are (being they exist how we perceive them), do they believe in a "God" or the same "God"?
Certainly they can't have the same religion being that our religions are based on "historical events"?

Well I guess i haven't thought about it. I really don't have to worry about that untill we see if they even exist. Then I will look into the Bible to see what info is said about that.

Just interested to see your stance on these issues as I cant get a straight answer on these issues from my religious friends...

"Perception is Reality" So what ever we believe true or false, proven or not it is all still "Real"...

Lets use the example of these Fish Fry folks in STL this evening. They are going to Church to eat fish so that they may show God just how much they can sacrifice. This is in the hopes that they will increase their chances of a place in a comfortable afterlife or something to that effect.

Perhaps you can give us a little more information on the "Fish Fry folks" religion. Do they have a web page?

I know there are a lot of Catholics in St. Louis. If you are labeling Catholics as "the Fish Fry folks", then your understanding is incorrect and you need to do some research.

Here's an interesting observation that is exactly the opposite of Micael's beliefs (and also points that one can have religious "non-beliefs"):

Several years back, I worked with a man who was an atheist, but went to a "church" with others who held this same belief. They did good deeds for society and everything else. They just did not believe in "God". In my eyes (but not sure about the governments) they were a "religion" (using definition #2 in Webster's).

I'm sorry, but the fact that I'm with the American Legion, and that we regularly meet, socialize, and donate our time and money to charities; does not mean that the American Legion is, or should be, thought of as a religion.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm sorry, but the fact that I'm with the American Legion, and that we regularly meet, socialize, and donate our time and money to charities; does not mean that the American Legion is, or should be, thought of as a religion.

I agree. I also do not know enough about the practices his group held. He was a really smart guy, and I recall him viewing it like a group of common believers rather than as a fraternal or civil organization. I could be wrong. I brought it up more as a starting point for discussion (to see whether anyone else ever heard of anything similar) than as something "definitely factual". (I seem to have broken my own rule of posting something I don't know the specifics of. Sorry for that!)

I don't blame you for your skepticism. Before I came to STL I had never heard of anything like it. On the other hand my wife has, she was raised under the influence of the Church of England (Anglican), so perhaps they do a similar thing?